The Straight Skinny About Liberal Dreams

of Tree-Hugging

                Good stewardship of the earth, as in conservation of resources and threatened environments and animal and plant life; prevention of toxic effects and substances despoiling the planet; some sort of wise and attractive balance between mankind and the natural world; and n0n-polluting power sources are what liberals call “no-brainers.” Unfortunately, not using your brain to go beyond these obvious desiderata and the practical implications for individual people and their governments is the reason that so many liberals seemingly act like they don’t have a pea-brain in their heads. 

                The amazing ability of green enthusiasts to demand draconian measures (including ultra-extreme population control methods) which show less than small regard for their fellow man while championing the survival of menaced mice, mosquitoes and mildew is shocking in its obvious misanthropy. In a perfect world: everybody would be green conscious philanthropists who think of fellow humans first.

                The green contingent’s miniscule regard for homo sapiens is easiest seen in the abhorrent and extreme population control methods advocated by Obama’s Science and Technology Czar John Holdren in a 1973 book he co-authored with the notorious Ehrlichs (Paul and Anne) in their “Human Ecology.” The book, said to have played a role in the passing of Roe vs. Wade later in the year, championed forced abortions, mass sterilization (via secret chemical additions via the water supply), mandatory body non-fertility implants and also paid more than lip service to eugenics. 

                The Ehrlichs and Holdren wrote: “a fetus is no more a complete human being than a blueprint is a building. The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being . . . a fetus” is not considered a “person” under the U.S. Constitution until it is born” thus the rationale behind forced abortions etc. on “potential human beings.” Since the born child years after birth will ultimately develop into a human being, infanticide sounds reasonable, too, no?

However, Holdren, an enthusiastic worshipper of notorious eugenicist Harrison Brown is not alone among the “liberal elite” (is that an oxymoron or what?) in believing that only certain types of special people should be allowed to live . . . recently Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in a rather shocking interview with the New York Times said, "Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of."

There’s good reason to think that Einstein, who didn’t speak until age five, might well have been labeled as “a population” that Ginsburg “doesn’t want to have too many of . . .” Of course, 20/20 hindsight clairvoyance would help Rajjpuut decide his first candidates for abortion would be Ginsburg, Holdren, the Ehrlichs and Harrison Brown as well as mass murderers, tyrants, child molesters and all supporters of government spending and government interference boondoggles (GSBs and GIBs).  In fairness to the lady justice, it may well be that she only meant “poor people” we don’t want so many of . . . ???

If you were to make a litmus test to discover idiots from the ultra-right wing, it would probably include belief in absolutely no abortions even in case of rape or incest; creationism taught in all public school science classes and evolution banned; religion taught in public schools; and howitzers for every six-year old capable of hunting small game.  To discover extreme liberals perverts, however, the litmus test listing could be much, much shorter -- let’s shrink the list of beliefs down to just one item: POPULATION CONTROL whether that means ZPG (zero population growth) or NPG (negative population growth). One item? Is Rajjputt crazy? Consider this:

1.        Abortion on demand: plays first violin in their population control symphony.

2.      Global warming/cap and trade/green tech: all these supposed problems and impractical solutions are their bass instruments in the NPG or ZPG movement of our “Unwashed Symphony.”

3.      End of Life Counselors in Obamacare: any potential chance to refuse medicines or services to the elderly for cost control or intercede in the natural decision to live as long as possible is clearly their brass section since Medicare is the problem ($34 TRillion in obligations now and officially bankrupt in 2016) and the last six months of life cost one-half of a person’s lifetime health care expenses . . . the temptation to control costs by “omission of care” to the elderly is surely too great to be avoided.

4.      Curtailing human endeavor for the sake of “endangered species” (such as the delta smelt in California stopping irrigation of the country’s largest and most fertile vegetable growing region and driving unemployment nearby to 41%) is their greenie symphony conductor letting the world know who’s more valuable: mankind or a two-inch fish too stupid to avoid irrigation piping.

5.      Etc., etc. the main message of radical environmentalism is that people are the problem and the planet would be better off without any people, except radical environmentalists, of course, leaving no one to hum along with their symphony.

Rajjpuut finds this approach disingenuous, if nutcase greenies really cared for the planet, surely their own suicides would be the logical and integral acts affirming their love of the natural planet and hate for humankind? Save the planet^^, Greenie, kill yourself now! 

Of course, Mother Nature herself has on two separate occasions pretty well cleaned things up on her own without any help from Wall Street and other “polluters.” The comet 65 million years ago that brought on the demise of the dinosaurs and eventually the rise of mammals and even primates and mankind also wiped out 96% of all life on the planet: plant or animal; and 420 million years earlier over 98% of Earth’s life was extinctED, to coin a term, by widespread super-volcanic activity bringing down upon the planet a total ice age lasting about six million years if Rajjpuut’s memory of pre-pre-history serves correctly. Given that background a little more reverence for the preciousness of human life might surely be in order in Rajjpuut’s not so humble opinion.

 The more vocal the green advocate whether their primary focus is global warming, other ecology, or green tech . . . the more likely they are to be an advocate of ZPG or NPG. In fact many Negative Population Growth fans literally are promulgating desired human population numbers ranging from as low as 180,000 to as high as two million for the entire planet. To put that in perspective, 29 out of every 30 people living on earth would have to die to satisfy the two million figure; and 33, 332 out of every 33, 333 people now living would be sacrificed to the whims of those favoring 180,000. If that seems like some sort of cruel intellectual parlor game to you . . . you’re right . . . that is exactly the sort of Maoist-Hitleresque mentality that it takes to dream up this sort of philosophy of life. One suspects that the earth-firsters would see the necessity of including themselves in the 180,000 valuable survivors, eh?

The main reason that “thinking lefties and greenies and even anarchists” (Rajjpuut knows, yes, that’s an awful lot of oxymorons) are so in favor of forcing green tech down our throats (even at the cost of $675,000 and 2.2 real jobs** for every green temporary green tech job created by government intervention) is their fervent belief that the planet’s only hope, regardless of quiescent human population is to develop a power source that is non-polluting. In that desire and understanding is the only agreement that greenies and Rajjpuut have. Green tech is ultimately desirable. Green tech would be a godsend. However, it’s in the little matter of PRACTICALITY that we differ. To insist upon cap and trade laws now or on financing green tech now is putting the cart before the horse. Right now practical, AFFORDABLE, SUSTAINABLE green technology is a dream only.

A whole lot of people marvel at Da Vinci being beyond his time with drawings of tanks, helicopters, and submarines centuries before those ideas became practical. That’s the way it is with green tech. Let’s say that 40 years from now, 89-90% of the greenies’ fondest wishes come true and a 21^st Century Edison-clone comes along and does for power generation and green tech what Edison did for electricity . . . hurrah! What we must NOT do now is to spend today’s dollars and eliminated today’s jobs on pipe dreams. Now’s definitely NOT the time to spend money on green tech jobs and converting the power grids . . . not 40 years too early, for crying out loud. 

What we can do now is to fund research, and only research, by bona fide scientists/inventors (not global warming enthusiasts friendly to the administration’s viewpoints)who've proven their credentials most practically of all by winning contests open to anyone where anybody with a non-polluting or extremely-lightly polluting non-traditional energy source ideas can demonstrate the efficacy of their ideas. Winners win cash prizes, free patents and government research bucks for, say, ten years. When we find our Edison, then we spend and convert the energy grids, not before.

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,

** This data comes from a longitudinal study of the Spanish experience with funneling tax money into green-tech and furthermore it showed that only one in ten green-tech jobs was permanent. Many of the green tech jobs of the five million Obama promised/threatened to create will only last three weeks or a month, or perhaps six months. This means that 22 real jobs are sacrificed to create one permanent green tech job, which alas, only pays $10-$16 per hour.

1.       At third place in a two-horse race (lagging well behind both Democrats and Independents in America’s allegiance) and with slightly less than 26% of the country supporting them the Republican Party needs to make a major shift in strategy IF it hopes to remain relevant and ever thrive again. Mr. Obama’s radicalism is offering an opportunity . . .

2.     On any given bill, a large majority of the fifty-two house “Blue Dog Democrats,” a very conservative group fiscally,  are poised to repeatedly vote with the G.O.P. if Republicans will just have the good sense to not stand in their way with unnecessary obstructions to working together. More on this as we discuss the Dems’ health care bill as it appears in the house.

3.     Reforming the G.O.P. here and now with only three main planks (A. Fiscal conservatism and responsible, accountable government B. strong national defense and C. Preservation of our American free-market capitalistic system)is the most logical; probably quickest; and definitely most Republican way back to respectability and the esteem of American voters

4.     The Republican Party needs to realize that the four single most Republican documents in America’s history are Patrick Henry’s two famous speeches before the Virginia House of Burgess (1765 “If this be Treason . . .” and 1775 “Give me LIBERTY or give me death); the Declaration of Independence and most particularly the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution. 

5.     And what is the most Republican part of the Bill of Rights?    The DOCTRINE of SEPARATION of CHURCH and STATE**. This document has been repeatedly and WRONGLY attacked by the ultra-conservative wing of the G.O.P. since ’64 and ’68 when Goldwater and Nixon first welcomed the disaffected Dixiecrats (who in ’48 left the Democratic Party over Truman’s integrating the armed forces and approving an Integration plank for his ’48 presidential run). The ultra-conservatives need to grow up and A. approve of religious teachings (Christmas carols; creationism; etc. ONLY in private or religious schools and never in public schools and B. Remember that the Civil War is over and the South lost and Integration is now the law of the land. Unfortunately, abortion is also the law of the land and should never be brought up for public debate until the party commands 60% of the American public and it’s decided that political suicide is necessary to avoid being so popular.

OK, back to the Dems efforts to force their pitiful and utterly-partisan house health care bill down America’s throats . . . as I write this, a bi-partisan group of U.S. Senators is coming up with a workable plan that omits 90% of Obama’s drivel and is based upon holding health care costs down and providing good service . . . which is all America wants or needs. It’s nowhere nearly as good as the tenets of Rajjpuut’s own health care revolution## which would reduce costs dramatically and actually bring health to the American people but it’s a start and far better than the alternatives the house is offering.

And why do we not already have an abominable Obamacare version before us, why has the house bill NOT passed? Because some very fiscally conservative and conscientious Blue-Dog Democrats have fought it tooth and nail. If the Republican Party will use fiscal-conservatism and accountable government as its Rosetta Stone I believe that on virtually every bill before us, we can expect to see 75% or more (39 votes or more) Blue Dogs voting with us.

Of course if we try to get cute and add abortion riders; creationism in science class riders; Christmas carol riders and the like . . . we will be abandoning our Republican principles incur their wrath and not get their support. Right now the Blue Dog Democrats are the most Republican group in either house. Rajjpuut says, “God bless us everyone, and particularly the Blue Dogs!”

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,

The two major parties at that time were the Whigs and the Democrats. The Democrats at that time were a major party but largely a one-issue party locked into preserving the status quo of slave ownership in the nation and extending slave ownership into new states to preserve their political power. The Whigs, when first created, were a bit like today’s Republican Party emphasizing conservativism in fiscal matters and they counted among their membership, Daniel Webster, Zachary Taylor, Henry Clay, Winfield Scott, William Henry Harrison, John Tyler and Abraham Lincoln. Of these, Abraham Lincoln was the only one still both alive and prominent after the Republican Party was born.

The Republican Party was the first party of INCLUSION, while the Democrats and Whigs were worried about the huge influx of Irish Catholics during the potato famine years and a splinter group the “American Party,” sometimes called the “Know-Nothing” party . . . because they were actually first a secret society and then a political party . . . while all three of these groups were debating over an anti-Catholic voting plank for their national organizations, the Republican Party was welcoming the new immigrants with open arms. The Republican Party is the party that freed the slaves. The Republican Party was the first major party to embrace women’s suffrage. Republicans dominating politics in western states were the first to allow women to vote. In 1920, a year when the Republican majorities made it possible, it was a Tennessee Republican named Harry Burn who cast the 36^th “Yes” vote that made women’s suffrage the 19^th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In 2008, at this low ebb in our party’s history however, a totally inept ex-community organizer was able to soundly spank the Republican Party and gain 95% of the Black vote; 56% of the Women’s vote; 66% of the Hispanic vote and 54% of the Catholic vote. It is time for revitalization.

The present party make-ups have their roots in history. In a sentence, Harry Truman stood strong; Richard Nixon went after votes at all costs and sold his soul.  Most people never noticed what he'd done, but a lot of principled people left the Republican Party shortly thereafter.

It happened like this:  after World War II, Democratic president Harry Truman was filling out the last years of  Franklin Roosevelt’s term.   A Missouri-born segregationist, Truman, a man of great principle despite his upbringing, dispatched FBI and other government officials to the South because of a huge flare-up of lynchings of Black ex-soldiers. Truman also was the driving force behind federal anti-lynching legislation. When Truman went further and fully integrated America's armed forces and then supported a civil rights plank for the Democratic convention in 1948, delegations from Mississippi and Alabama walked out of the convention. Eventually a large group of southern delegates united together to create the Democratic States’ Rights Party which nominated Strom Thurmond to run against Truman and the Republican Candidate Thomas Dewey.  Historically the "Democratic States Rights" people are remembered as the "Dixiecrats" and by "states' rights" they meant the right to segregate.  These Dixiecrats' aimed to defeat Truman in the election and thus prove their value to the Democrats. When Truman defeated Dewey in 1948, their plan ricocheted on them. They became a “cause without a party.”  

Richard Nixon’s embrace of what he called “the Silent Majority,” in 1968, brought the former Dixiecrats into the Republican fold. This new coalition was known positively for fiscal conservatism and the desire for a smaller, less controlling federal government. However, even moreso, since Nixon the tri-fold issues of Anti-abortionism, separation of church and state (having creationism taught in public schools and celebration of Christian holidays in public schools in particular) and anti-INCLUSIONISM (first segregation and now anti-homosexuality) have been the defining face of the G.O.P.  Throw in “gun-rights and you have 90% of how most non-Republican Americans have identified Republicans in survey after survey over the last twenty years.     

            Since Richard Nixon courted the segregationist Dixiecrats, the Republican Party has not slept soundly in its bed. We have spent forty years kowtowing to the wishes of his so-called “Silent Majority” which was never silent and certainly is not anywhere close to the majority of this great party. Instead of catering to the least common denominator, it is time for the former Dixiecrats to grow up: integration is the law of the land and has been for 45 years. If you can’t see that now, I don’t want you in my Republican Party, or any party that I’d ever be a part of . . . The Republican Party needs to re-establish itself as the party of “principled INCLUSIONISM” that means, as Martin Luther King said, people are judged by the content of their character and their accomplishments not by the color of their skin or other extraneous details.

            Nixon’s welcoming of the Dixiecrats, brought upon the Republican Party a whole era of hypocrisy. When the fundamentalists among us preached one thing and were discovered over and over and over again with their pants down sometimes literally, sometimes figuratively, sometimes both . . . it brought disgrace to the party of Lincoln.

Although I personally disagree strongly and have lived my life squarely against it: abortion is the law of the land.   The law of the land also forbids teaching religion in public schools, therefore, “Creationism” whether it is Hindu or Buddhist Creationism or Christian Creationism or Zoroastrianism Creationism, or what have you, belongs in churches and religious schools . . . it does not belong in public school science classes; by the same token, school vouchers for non-public schools need to be honored so that the large numbers of Americans who believe that the “Theory of Evolution is just a theory and not scientific fact . . . not equivalent to the LAW of gravity, for example . . . those people can have an outlet for teaching their children which does not include what they see as having the “religion of evolution” shoved down their throats; by the same token, public funds should never be used for abortions, we’re not talking about medical emergencies here, we’re talking about a calculated decision not to have a child . . . a decision that the mother or family or sympathetic non-profit agencies must be responsible for. On the other hand, the debate about one aspect of abortion needs to end now and forever: any time a woman is the victim of rape, incest, or her life is endangered by pregnancy or she is mentally retarded . . . she has the right to an abortion, and damned be he that would throw the first stone against her.

Let me go further, as both a woman and a voter . . .          Of all the groups Republicans have angered, women have the most reason to disrespect us. Instead of honoring the “women’s movement” we have thrown a lot of thinking women into the arms of radical, outrageous feminism . . . read the words of de Beavouir, of Friedan and Steinhem . . . words like "We don't believe that any woman should have this choice. No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children ... precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one." Words like “home is a ‘cozy concentration camp’ we need to “raise consciousness” so that all women will disparage the role of fulltime homemaker and mother.” Words like, “EVERY act of heterosexual intercourse, even on the marriage bed is RAPE! 

We have chased sensible women into the arms of these maniacs because we would not consider abortion in the case of rape, or incest, or in the case of twelve year olds too young to be mothers, or even when the life of the woman herself is threatened by childbirth. Not even in those instances would Republicans admit a woman the right to control her own body . . . is it any wonder that so many women’s hearts and minds are hardened against us? Sarah Palin says, he or she who is without sin cast the first stone or just retreat into your cave and shut up!

Everyone knows that full and complete separation of church and state is a founding principle of the United States Constitution. Any arguments to the contrary are anti-American. The Pilgrims did not escape their religious persecution in order to come to this country and make Christianity the new persecutor of minority religions. Republicans must be the guardians of the Constitution and not act as the Devils who would quote constitutional scripture for their own evil purposes. The party of inclusion that freed the slaves, ensured the 19^th Amendment to give women the vote and first welcomed Catholics to our shores in large numbers needs to regain its roots and welcome back all principled people regardless of the color or shape of their skin; or the nature of the God they worship, or other extraneous details.

            We cannot afford to wait one day longer, we must decide to act on strong and honest principle: NOW! We cannot afford to allow a non-native born personality with no respect for the American Constitution to dismantle everything good about this country. Now is the time to revitalize the Republican Party, or failing that, now is the time to create a new Republican Party true to the principles of Abraham Lincoln.  The vast majority of Americans do not know what a Republic is nor do they know that the "Declaration of Independence," Bill of Rights and most other amendments to the United Constitution are all Republican documents;  nor do most Americans understand and appreciate the Electoral College another Republican Document; nor do they understand and appreciate how these Republican documents ensure the rights of both the individuals and of the individual states making up these United States.  "America" is a beautiful name but properly we are "The United States of America" and we need to respect the individual states.

            We need a revitalization.  Certainly Republicans as a whole need to stand up and protest the president of the United States conducting a bankruptcy all by himself, bystepping experienced bankruptcy judges and officials; violating 223 years of bankruptcy laws and legal precedence; stealing pensions from more than 100,000 Indiana citizens who were "secured creditors" and after giving them pennies on the dollar giving a union that supported his candidacy 16% ownership in a Chrysler entity that included their money.

            Democracy is very important and it's so very easy to understand:  the most popular wins, period. 

            But it is Republican ideals that have played the most important role in our nation's history to date.  If I have my druthers, Republican ideals will be the ones that revitalize this nation throughout the 21st Century.  The Republican Party under Ronald Reagan was the party that encouraged the fall of Communism, the end of the Warsaw Pact, and which ended and finally won the Cold war and sent the sledge hammers into action tearing down of the Berlin Wall.  Ronald Reagan was the most principled of recent Republicans in the national spotlight and democracy rewarded him with two landslide victories.  We need to revitalize and stand on principles not of hate but of love; not of clamorous dissent but of productive discourse.

            I look forward to playing a part in the debate that will surely follow. Unlike Jeremiah Wright and his apostle Barak, I will never apologize for America and I will always say “God BLESS America! 
            And may government of the people, by the people and for the people never perish from the earth!  Thank you.”

That speech is Rajjpuut’s fervent hope for America . . .
 

Ya'all live long, strong and ornery,

         Finding the best person for the job, no longer seems important to Presidents. I'd say that's been largely true for the last 50 years. Ideology or "quota-filling" seems to be the modern trend in many ways, but particularly in selecting Supreme Court justices.  It's too bad recent Presidents have not paid closer attention to "real diversity," notably the religion of the justices as I'll explain later, to insure total separation of church and state.  Religion, in name at least, more than any other factor illuminates the emotional predilections of a human being, judge or not.

                   Recently, a man in Wichita, KS was gunned down while attending church and in Washington, D.C.,  an unqualified woman was nominated for inclusion in the United States Supreme Court, the highest court in the land. 

                   The case is tried in Wichita, KS. The defendant is found sane and guilty of murder in the first degree. Later after 600,000 words of legal battling, A Kansas appeals court later decides that a retrial is needed since it was “impossible for the defendant to receive a fair trial in Wichita.”  The case is retried in Hutchinson, Kansas, before a new judge and a new jury. This time the fact that the defendant’s wife and unborn fetus died during an abortion attempt by Dr. Tiller (“It goes to state of mind, your honor”) is allowed by an eyelash

. . . the trial judge, who lost his youngest child to medical malpractice refuses to recuse himself from the case feeling there is “No conflict of interest here and that he can conduct a fair and impartial trial.” Being a good judge, however, he makes note of the recusal and submits a judicial opinion as to why recusal was not necessary. The case is heard and this time the trigger-puller is found not guilty by reason of insanity and remanded to the Kansas Mental Hospital in Topeka.

                   In the Kansas appellate court, the justices strongly feel that the failure to recuse himself by the second trial judge was a gross miscarriage of justice and the original verdict of guilty is appropriate. However, because of differing interpretations of the “state of mind” at the moment the trigger was pulled, they make note that “perhaps a 2^nd degree murder conviction is more in line with all the facts of the case.

                   The case is eventually appealed to the United States Supreme Court. Behind the scenes all sorts of little technicalities that would alternately bore you and me to death, and shock the hell out of us have occurred all along the way in the five Kansas trials. We’re not talking about “clerical errors” here, but rather just a string of “fine legal points” that have arisen along the way. The state of Kansas lawyers present a learned and comprehensive 560 pages of briefs about all five trials but principally centering upon why the fourth trial verdict (murder in the 1^st degree) in Lawrence, Kansas must be upheld. The legal team for the trigger-puller presents over 780 pages of counter arguments and motions backed by voluminous prior U.S. Supreme Court rulings that insist that the only valid trial was the second one in Hutchinson, yes, he’s guilty, but only because of criminal insanity, so let’s put this man in the nuthouse where he belongs.

                   The U.S. Supreme Court receives about 7,600 such petitions each year. They select roughly 100 cases during the year for “oral argument.” Of the cases it “hears,” they may only write opinions on 85 or 86 cases. Chances are the Wichita shooting case will NOT be heard. If it’s heard, the court still might not issue an opinion. However, this case really intrigues the Chief Justice and every member of the Supreme Court. Even before hearing the case or saying one word to one another, they ponder animatedly what are the key elements that such a case should turn on. It’s no longer about the trigger-man or the dead man, the case has now entered the lofty world of pure ideas. “What,” they’re asking themselves, “would a perfect rendering of the law look like in such a case” and most importantly, “Why should it look that way?” After hearing this case will the law be the same? If so, “why?” Or “should new legal paths be blazed?”

                   Putting it another way, the lower court trials were children’s tic-tac-toe; the appellate judgments were cracker barrel checkers; and now we’re into grandmaster chess.     

                     After hearing oral arguments, the justices take a breather. When they come back, they will each have formed an opinion and seek to sway the other eight justices to their way of thinking. Eventually there will usually be just two main lines of thought. For the sake of argument again, let’s imagine that eight of the justices are split perfectly evenly four votes for and for votes against as to how this case and all its legal ramifications must be dealt with.

The ninth justice is brand new, a Hispanic lady. Her decision will set the course of legal thought in this country for perhaps 80 years or longer. It’s very close in her mind, something about the Judge in the first case reminds her of herself when she was just breaking in on the bench; and yet, she doesn’t like the way the upper courts treated the Hutchinson judge either. She’s been over-ruled several times and it’s really painful . . . . which way shall she decide?

                   Perhaps it would be better if she weren’t the one deciding at all. Here she is supposed to be zooming in on some of the weightier details in legal history and she’s stuck with her “feelings” and what her heart tells her. There’s a very good chance that every time her vote is the deciding one, she’d actually be setting back American jurisprudence for decades. Judges of Sotomayor's ilk, are moved by their feelings and often tempted to ignore the law and its fine distinctions and do whatever they feel like doing regardless of the law and the judicial precedents.   

            The concept of "Blind Justice" means that everyone under the same circumstances deserves to receive the same unbiased treatment before the law.   Biased judgment, such as Sotomayor professes means that the judge can play favorites based upon "gut feelings," "hunches," appearances and such extraneous considerations.  Liking a person or their motives is not part of the equation.  The competent judge holds to the standards of written law and judicial precedent except in those perhaps one or two per cent of cases where it absolutely appears that new ground must be broken. 

In those rare cases, the judge holds to a bit of logic very closely aligned with Immanuel Kant's "Categorical Imperative."  The Categorical Imperative is the very CRUX of being a good judge . . . in those rare cases where the present laws and precedents don't seem to lead to AN ABSOLUTELY FAIR VERDICT, then the wise judge must come up with an action or law that he/she would will to become a universal law and reasons why this law makes iron-clad logical sense . . . not a law that he or she foresees being shunted aside by other judges at other times because they don't feel like following it on a particular day, but a universal law.  Just by coincidence that is the exact "job description" of an appellate judge and the highest appellate court in the land is the U.S Supreme Court.

               So how does the categorical imperative relate to the murder of Dr. Tiller?  Should a rational man consider that every time he disagrees with a law or legal precedent such as Roe vs. Wade he MUST commit violence (or even murder) and every one else who ever disagrees with any law also must commit violence?  That is the categorical imperative.  Let's say that the Supreme Court someday changes the law, now abortion is illegal and in the words of "pro-choice advocates, "every day “hundreds of women are dying from back alley abortions."  The father or brother of one of those women takes a gun and starts shooting up every pro-lifer he can find before the police gun him down.  Would we like that course of action to be the categorical imperative?  the Universal Law?